Is DDR Worth It? 27
Wing asks: "I'm about to build a new box and I was looking at all the different things I could do to make it faster, better, etc. What I was wondering was, is it worth the extra money to invest in a DDR capable motherboard and RAM? Is there that big of a speed difference or should I stick with the same old SDRAM?"
Re:Some new DDR boards have both memory slots ... (Score:1)
In my mind, this is troll bait. But I just have to bite.
Most Linux power users have had a lot of experience working with MS products, and many still have to use them (because of their job or what have you). The opposite is not true. I myself was responsible for introducing a hard-core MCSE (if such a thing exists) to Linux, sometime in late 1999/early 2000; he had never seen a Linux box before.
Re:Some new DDR boards have both memory slots ... (Score:1)
Some of your will argue that Linux is now easy to use, etc. etc... Well, whatever. I'm all for making it easier to use but at the moment I think we still have a long way to go.
(note: if the Windows person is giving constructive criticism that is one thing, simply trolling is another...).
Re:Some new DDR boards have both memory slots ... (Score:1)
Re:Maybe (Score:1)
Re:More Reading = More Answers (Score:1)
Re:More Reading = More Answers (Score:1)
Re:More Expensive??? (Score:1)
"equivalent" PC100 memory with DDR is called PC1600. I believe PC133 is 2100, and MUCH more expensive.
I've been quoted $150 for an Asus A7V133 board and about the same (a little higher) for a 128MB PC2100 DIMM. On top of that, the CPUs with the 133FSBs are still around $250 and it's the slowest 133FSB Athlon CPU I have access to (Southern Ontario).
Tom's [http] has a pretty good set of articles on the whole DDR situation. I've read around 5-10% overall speed increases with DDR memory.
Everybody who's tried DDR seems to like it... (Score:1)
Mind you, we might not be talking about the same DDR [konami-arcade.com].
On an off-topic note, games like this are rather easy to write; so why don't we have more of them? I'm sure someone has/will publish schematics + drivers to allow us to use DDR mats. And I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say the Linux community could probably use a better sense of rhythm.
Re:Yes... and no (Score:1)
If your PC is near where you work/sleep, buy a 7200rpm or stick with IDE!
It's all about latency (Score:1)
PC1600=PC100+DDR, not PC133+DDR (Score:1)
IOW, you are comparing apples and oranges.
According to this search [pricewatch.com] on Pricewatch [pricewatch.com], you can get Micron (Crucial) 256MB PC2100 DIMMs for ~220 + shipping.
---
nuclear presidential echelon assassination encryption virulent strain
Re:Cost vs. Effectiveness (Score:1)
5-12% increase in performance for 50% increase in price is still barely tolerable.
5-12% increase in performance for 100% or higher increase in price is unacceptable.
That is what engineers do for a living, compare performance to the cost of achieving that performance and choosing the solution that gives the most performance for the lowest price. The comparisons I made is the essence of good engineering.
I paid 1200 Deutsch Marks for my system: processor, motherboard, PC 133 ram and DVD drive. To make it DDR capable would have cost me about 850 Deutsch Marks ontop of that 1200 I paid for the PC133 based system assuming I bought the same amount of DDR ram as PC 100 ram (256 megs). That is an increase of 70% in total system price for a 5-12% total increase in performance. I might as well flush them 800 Deutsch Marks down the toilet or do something sensable like buy a monitor or something mildly insane like buying a Geforce 3 card.
Would you pay 70% more for a house that has is an extra 10% bigger?
DDR is not worth it, at the moment (Score:1)
You just don't need it. The AMD 760 chipset isn't that great, if I mind saying. I would really wait for a chipset by VIA than ALi or AMD. Once AMD's processor take full advantage of DDR, or until Intel decides to trash Rambus and become a good competitor once again, I will wait.
At current prices (Score:2)
Also, the DDR capable board itself is not a good investment now. If you plan to migrate to DDR later, better to buy the motherboard when it is reasonably priced. The hardware & BIOS will be more mature as well.
What is a good buy right now are the boards rated for 133 MHz FSB. 133 MHz FSB Athlons (not Palomino core tho) are available already for a very good price, but are in somewhat short supply for the next few weeks.
I'm told you can reduce the multiplier setting to run an older Athlon fairly safely at that speed (e.g., 10 * 100 is about 6.5 * 133). Of course that counts as overclocking and will void your warranty.
When all is said and done, it's a great time to buy a computer. Enjoy!
More Expensive??? (Score:2)
A DDR PC1600 256MB from Crucial.Com is $94.94.
They are the same price! I know Crucial RAM is a little more then generic, but it is great quality RAM with a life time warranty!
Re:Some new DDR boards have both memory slots ... (Score:2)
Now that I think of it, if one's main server/workstation is/was Linux, is it then acceptable for one to comment ignorantly on it (Linux)?
I don't consider anyone who's worked with MSware disqualified from commenting on it, but it does tend to provoke comments that shouldn't be uttered in polite society (and cause the realization that one knows more of those impolite phrases than one previously realized).
Re:Some new DDR boards have both memory slots ... (Score:2)
Doesn't that sort of rule invalidate any comments about MS products from Linux power users?
Re:More Reading = More Answers (Score:2)
Re:Some new DDR boards have both memory slots ... (Score:2)
I don't consider anyone who's worked with MSware disqualified from commenting on MSware, but MSware does tend to provoke comments that shouldn't be uttered in polite society (and cause the realization that one knows more of those impolite phrases than one previously realized).
Some new DDR boards have both memory slots ... (Score:2)
Just want to point out the fact that many new DDR boards have both the 184-pin DDR SDRAM slots and older 168-pin SDR (i.e. "normal") SDRAM slots. Of course you have to choose one or the other when you buy/install, but it's still nice to have the option (and upgrade path).
In addition to dual-SDR/DDR support, you'll get a better and wider range of supported SDR types. Why? VIA makes most of the chipsets on these boards and even the older SDR memory interface and memory compatibility matrix has been improved with the newer chipset.
If you're interested in all the details, I cover the broad spectrum of different chipsets and their memory support/issues here [zepa.net]. It includes a discussion of VIA's latest Intel/Athlon DDR chipsets and their SDR support.
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Re:Cost vs. Effectiveness (Score:2)
More Reading = More Answers (Score:2)
Second, in their article, they made a very good point. For almost all tasks, you're going to be better off INCREASING the amount of SDRAM you have in your system, versus upgrading to DDRAM. Why? Because with the extra RAM, you're going to be caching more and you're going to be churning your hard drive a whole lot less. And if you think SDRAM is slow, in comparitive terms, getting data off of the hard drive is like watching glass melt at room temperature. (Note: It does happen. Just VERY VERY slowly.)
So, if you are UPGRADING a system, you're going to be better off with more memory rather than going DDRAM. Way more bang for the buck, unless you've got a major specific thing you work with that you know that DDRAM is somehow going to give a big advantage (rare).
I was also reading a bit about the future of memory. It seems that there are things coming down the pipe, that by the time you want to upgrade your NEW system, you probably won't be using your current SDRAM or DDRAM modules. So it almost makes sense to keep with your current memory modules and get more life out of them. Or at least to spend your money on MORE memory, rather than FASTER memory. (Which MORE memory will equal FASTER performance, even if you don't have the fastest memory around.)
Hope this helps!
Re:What is DDR? (Score:2)
It's the German initials for what used to be East Germany.
If you do get DDR RAM... (Score:2)
If you are not sure, then get a motherboard that supports both SDRAM and DDR RAM. That way, you can get SDRAM real cheap now (256 MB of PC 133 RAM picked up last weekend for $85 - no shipping). When prices go down later in the year (as they are expected to), then you can have a painless upgrade.
Cost vs. Effectiveness (Score:2)
Basically you get a performance increase of what? 5-12%? Or there abouts.
From what I have seen these new DDR's and the motherboards that can take them cost alot more than 5-12% more than the old stuff more like 250-350% more for a 5-12% performance increase.
I concluded that buying DDR's was pitifully little bang for obscenely many bucks. I decided to buy a PC133 SDRAM based system and use the money I would have blown on DDR's to pay for a proper 19" flatscreen monitor. After two weeks of using it I am pleased to report that I get more of a kick out of the monitor than buying 5-12% extra performance for a kings ransom would have given me.
DDR vs SDR vs FSB Speed (Score:3)
A 133mhz front side bus is significantly better than a 100mhz front side bus.
There is almost no performance difference between CAS 2.5 and CAS 2 memory.
On the Athlon, the choice between DDR and SDR RAM makes little difference in terms of performance, except in unusual circumstances.
In order to better answer the question, we have to know what you're doing with the machine.
For example, will you be playing one of the first person shooters where the graphics card is traditionally the bottleneck? If so, your answer is obvious -- don't DDR. But if you're playing some of the others where memory transfer rates are important, and performance in that game is important to you, the DDR is a good bet.
For a "general task" computer running Windows, SDR is fine. BTW, none of the benchmarks I've seen consider how a Linux OS would respond. Interesting, no?
Re:What is DDR? (Score:3)